BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2024
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 37/2024
1. | Sri M. Lokappa Gowda, S/o Late Sri Krishnappa Gowda, Aged about 74 years, M/s Swagriha Builders & Developers, No.305, Green Nest Layout, Vajarahalli, Nelamangala, Bengaluru 562 123. | … Applicant/s |
2. | Sri L. Bharath Kumar, S/o Sri M. Lokappa Gowda, Aged about 45 years, M/s Swagriha Builders & Developers, No.305, Green Nest Layout, Vajarahalli, Nelamangala, Bengaluru 562 123. (By Sri K.S. Arun, Advocate) | |
V/s
Sri Satish Soni, S/o Sri R.P. Soni, Aged about 70 years, Residing at No.142, 3rd Phase, 8th Main, 13th Cross, Girinagar, Bengaluru 560 085. (In person) | … Respondent/s |
:ORDER:
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER
The Review Applicants/respondents have preferred this Review Application being aggrieved by the Order dt.12.02.2024 passed in Appeal No.1606/2023 prayed to set aside the Order in the interest of justice and equity.
2. On going through the Review Application filed U/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and order passed by us, it is appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 50 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 2019 hereunder:-
“The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order”.
3. We noticed here that the order passed by this Commission has no error either in law or any error apparent on the face of record as contemplated U/s 50 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
4. Perused the Review Application. It is noticed that the respondent has filed a complaint before the District Commission and the District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said Order, the respondent preferred an appeal and produced certain documents before this Commission. This Commission after considering the documents remanded back the matter with a direction to consider the document Nos. 1 to 41 produced by the respondent before this Commission and dispose-of the matter in accordance with Law. The District Commission considering the said documents allowed the complaint partly and directed the Opposite Parties/Review Petitioners to register the Sale Deed in respect of the Site No.567 & 568 along with compensation and costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Review Petitioner/Opposite Party preferred an appeal before this Commission. This Commission after perusing the documents noticed that the Review Applicant after executed the Sale Deed in respect of the site Nos. 567 & 568 in favour of some other persons instead of complainant/respondent. However, the sites in question were available with respondents up to 2018-2019 and Review Applicant has not executed the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent the reasons known to him. Moreover after service of notice of this Commission, the Review Applicant not appeared before this Commission and contested the matter. After passing the Order, came with Review Application after 93 days (as per office note) stating that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the applicants which is a clear negligence on the part of the Opposite Party only. The Review Applicant has to file the Review Application within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The respondent had paid the sital value in the year 1997 and entered into an agreement and till today, the Review Applicant had neither executed the sale deed in respect of the sites nor refund the amount received from the respondent towards sites. In Review Application the applicant contended that in Appeal No.1606/2023 at Page-6 in Para-11 of the impugned order, the amount has been wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,87,750/- whereas admittedly the amount is Rs.1,82,750/-.
6. Perused the Order, we noticed that at Page-6 in Para-11, there was a typographical error in mentioning the amount as Rs.1,87,750/- instead of Rs.1,82,750/-, hence, this typographical mistake has been identified and rectified to reflect the accurate amount as Rs.1,82,750/-. Hence, considering all these facts and documents produced by the respondent, this Commission has passed an Order which is just and proper. Hence, there is no any apparent error on the face of the record except for the amount reflected in para-11 page-6 of the impugned order. If the Review Applicant is not satisfied with the Order passed by this Commission, he is at liberty to approach the appellate authority. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
The Review Application is disposed-of as no order as to costs.
The amount reflected in the impugned Order in Appeal No.1606/2023 at Page-6 in Para-11 is also corrected as Rs.1,82,750/- instead of Rs.1,87,750/-.
Notify the order to the parties and place this order/records along with concerned appeal records.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
